5. Entrepreneursp in context II:
Entrepreneurship and farms
5. Entrepreneursp in context II: Entrepreneurship and farms
A. Farms and the changing rural small business
B. Policy frames in the farm sector
C. Entrepreneurship and farmers
D. Entrepreneur identity and entrepreneurial
agency among farmers
E. Entrepreneurial skills and the adoption of
entrepreneurship discourse?
A. Farms and the changing rural small business
• Structural change in acriculture: globalisation;
free markets; competitiveness + social, regional
and ecological concerns in EU-politics
• Finland: Member of the EU since 1995
• Decline in the number of farms:
• 1994: 103 000;
• 1995: 95 600;
• 2000: 77 900;
• 2005: 69 000;
• 2009: 63 700
A. Farms and the changing rural small business
•
•
•
•
Growth in the average size:
1995: 23 ha arable land;
2009: 35 ha
Growth in the overall productivity: in 2009 the same
amount of input yielded 21% more output than in 1992
• Agricultural income: 1995: 1,549 million €; 2009: 845
million €;
• Support payments represent 43% of the total return on
agriculture and horticulture (1.9 billion/4.6 billion)
A. Farms and the changing rural small business
•
•
•
•
•
•
Employment:
Agriculture: 1995: 140 000; 2009: 90 000
Trade of agricultural inputs: 20 000 (2009)
Food industry: 1995: 45 000; 2009: 35 000
Food trade: 50 000
Restaurant & catering services: 1995: 46 000;
2009: 66 000
• Food sector in all: almost 300 000
A. Farms and the changing rural small business
• Rural small businesses:
Basic agriculture farms:
2000:58 000; 2007: 50 150
Diversified farms:
2000: 21 800; 2007: 23 200
Other rural small firms (less than 20 persons):
2000: 56 600; 2007: 69 400
A. Farms and the changing rural small business
• Diversified activities (2007):
• Primary prod. (other than agriculture & forestry):
1500 farms
• Industry: 4700 (food & wood processing, handicraft, peat
& energy production, metal products)
• Construction: 1000
• Trade: 1300
• Services: 14 500 (tourism, machine contracting,
care services, transportation, horse husbandry
services)
B. Policy frames in the farm sector
• Potter & Tilzey 2005: Agricultural policy
discourses in the European post-Fordist
transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism
and multifunctionality
• Phillipson et al. 2004: Treating farms as firms?
The evolution of farm business support from
productionist to entrepreneurial models.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2004, volume 22, pages 31 –
54
.
Agricultural restructuring and related policy discourses?
• There is neoliberalism but also discourses that
can be (and have been) associated with
entrepreneurship (multifunctionality,
neomercantilism)
Entrepreneurship discourses and the farm
context?
• Phillipson et al. (2004) Treating farms as firms? The evolution of
farm business support from productionist to entrepreneurial
models. (Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2004, volume 22, pages 31 – 54.)
• “Throughout the European Union (EU) farming enterprises
have traditionally operated within a very different political
and economic environment from their nonagricultural
counterparts. Agricultural activities have been governed by
a separate set of policy objectives, political institutions, and
support agencies.
However, this agricultural `exceptionalism' is being
challenged via the liberalisation of markets, reform of
government institutions, and demands for the closer and
more strategic integration of farming within wider local and
regional development initiatives.” (p. 31)
Potter & Tilzey 2005, 587 (Agricultural policy discourses in the
European post-Fordist transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism and
multifunctionality)
• While traditional family-farming constituencies,
particularly those of neomercantilist and social
protectionist persuasions, do continue actively and
with varying degrees of success to defend state
assistance in one form or another, the emergence of
nonproductive fractions of agro-food capital such as
processors, distributors and retailers as key and
influential players in a form or another, the last 20
years has meant that agricultural market liberalization
and the accelerated dismantling of state support now
has strong support as a policy project (Cafruny, 1989;
Hart, 1997; McMichael, 2000; Josling, 2002).
Potter & Tilzey 2005, 589
• “However, while it may be true that the WTO negotiations created a
frame within which neoliberal interests could advance, a deeper
understanding of the formative influences is required in order to
explain why a neoliberal agenda for reform now began so strongly to
emerge. Many of these derive from the restructuring of agriculture
and the emergence of an agro-food industry composed of
processors, distributors and retailers increasingly aligned to the
interests of corporate capital.
While these 'nonproductive fractions of agro-capital may not exhibit
all the characteristics of vertically integrated, transnational sectors
such as electronics, clothing or automobile production (Goodman,
1997), they are now sufficiently disembedded from national and
regional contexts and geared to the supply of world markets to be
described as global in outlook and orientation (Josling, 2002).
This has eroded the coherence of the agricultural policy community,
challenging corporatist models of policy governance and introducing
new discourses into the agricultural policy debate which emphasize
international competitiveness and improved overseas market access
(McMichael, 2000).”
Potter & Tilzey 2005, 589
• Competing discourses:
-multifunctionalism
-neomercantilism
Multifunctionalism
• The concept of multifunctionality has its roots
in a social welfare justification for state
assistance which dates from the earliest years
of the CAP (Potter, 2004). Since the mid1980s, policy-makers have gradually
acknowledged the need to diversify the
income base of family farms by capitalizing on
agriculture's ancillary functions such as
biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage.
Multifunctionalism
• Thus, advocates of strong multifunctionality
position their case firmly within what Reiger
(1977) has called 'the moral economy of the
European Community' (sic) by regarding the
activity of farming as one of the defining
conditions of rural space, the purpose of state
assistance being to create the conditions
under which family farming, rural landscapes
and society can flourish.
Neomercantilism
• Advocates of neomercantilism in agricultural
policy, by contrast, start from an essentially
productivist conception of the farmer's
vocation, regarding the function of the state
being to safeguard and underwrite productive
capacity and export potential.
C. Entrepreneurship and farmers
• a taken-for-granted assumption that market
liberalisation and the dissolution of state
protection (intervention through subsidies
and regulation) creates the need for farmers
to response entrepreurially
• ”Freedom to farm to market demand”
• Not so simple, however
Phillipson et al. (2004, 32-33)
• “Ongoing trade liberalisation as well as reform of the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) are leading to increased pressure for the reorientation of
farming to a more entrepreneurial model, that is both competitive and
sustainable. Such changes in the policy context and trading environment
are promoting alterations in the role, attitudes, and business practices of
farmers and attempting to reduce the distorting effects of agricultural
subsidies upon their business aspirations and decisions. As commodity
price support systems are reduced and as production subsidies decline or
are redirected, farmers will increasingly need to adapt.
Many will find it difficult to compete purely on a cost basis and will need
instead to focus their attentions on the identification and exploitation of
opportunities for niche production and markets, means of adding value to
their products, or enhanced systems of cooperation. Farmers are also
being encouraged to diversify into alternative and nonfarming enterprises
(PIU, 1999). Shifting from a production to a more entrepreneurial model
will require a greater emphasis on the personal capacities and
entrepreneurial skills (1) of farmers with respect to commercialisation,
promotion, and organisation (van Huylenbroeck and Durand, 2003).”
Phillipson et al. (2004, 33)
1) According to the UK paper Enterprise for All
(SBS, 2001) an entrepreneurial approach is
characterised by original thought, innovation, and
risk taking. Such an approach has traditionally
been less important to the farming sector as a
consequence of protected markets and direct
payments. With market liberalisation farmers are
being encouraged to take on or seek out new
economic opportunities which is placing greater
emphasis on risk taking and market orientation
and upon the development and application of
(new) generic business skills.
Phillipson et al. (2004, 33)
• In the United Kingdom, albeit with notable exceptions,
many farmers have been characterised as lacking
general business capabilities and as unwilling to adapt
or develop new skills in light of changing demands,
which is seen as part of a wider skills challenge within
the agriculture and food sectors (DEFRA, 2002; Scottish
Executive, 2002) (2).For example, according to the
Performance and Innovation Unit:
´The problem of less entrepreneurial behaviour among
some farmers may be a legacy of the heavily
interventionist frameworks that have dominated
agriculture throughout the post-war period.
Government has not encouraged farmers to see
themselves as entrepreneurs.` ”
Concluding the outline of Phillipson et al.
• Entrepreneurship discourse in agricultural
policy: entrepreneurs as agents who survive in
open markets by pursuing business
opportunities; farmers as actors lacking such
agency; -> farmers should be developed into
entrepreneurs (by the government)
• Comp. Bryant (1989) Entrepreneurs in the
rural environment. JRS 54:4
Are entrepreneurship discourses
totally new and alien to farmers and
farming culture?
• In addition to policy discourse, positive
answer have been presented in some research
discussions
• Dudley (2003) The entrepreneurial self?
Identity and morality in a Midwestern Farming
Community. In Adams, J. (ed.) Fighting for the
farm. University of Pensylvania press.
Reflecting Dudley
• While reading Dudley, figure out for yourself answers to the
following questions:
• What does Dudley (2003) mean by entrepreneurial self? What
are the aspects and features of it? Is it the same as
entrepreneurial spirit?
• What is the relation between farmers in Star Prairie and
entrepreneurial self
• What is the relation between entrepreneurial self and the
modern capitalistic market economy? How does
entrepreneurial self connect to the restructuring of
agriculture?
Dudley: conclusion
• Rather than two distinct categories of farmers
(entrepreneur vs. yeoman) (p. 177-178),
entrepreneurship suits for describing the commonly
shared cultural basis of farming community.
• E agent: aims to be independent, produce efficiently,
grow the farm (legitimated by over-generation
continuity and ”a good-farmer eye”), assumes personal
responsibility for the economic risk (self as principal?)
• Entrepreneurial self as a ground/foundation for selfregulative agency in farm ownership and management,
but also for excessive risk-taking
• Credit-based production/absentee ownership as threats
(186)
Dudley: conclusion
• ”The rhetoric of risk reframes the danger of
dispossession and capital penetration as an
individual moral dilemma” (186) (self as principal –
frame legitimating capital penetration?)
• The rhetoric of risks limits the ability to
conceptualise the social consequences of macroeconomic forces that are beyond individual control
(187) (exaggerating farmers agency)
• the rhetoric of risk helds individual accountable for
their losses, while state sponsors the penetration of
capital (188)
D. Entrepreneur identity and entrepreneurial
agency among farmers
Methods
Subjects: three main groups:
1) conventional farmers concentrating only on agricultural primary
production (`conventional farmers´) (n=271)
2) farmers who also had non-agricultural business (`diversified farmers´)
(n=469)
3) rural non-agricultural small-scale businesses (`non-farm entrepreneurs´)
(n=131). The sample of rural non-farm entrepreneurs was limited to smallscale enterprises with a maximum of 20 personnel and sales of more than
100 000 €.
A rural area was defined as having a population density of less than 50
inhabitants/square km within a certain zip code.
Data collection:
Data was collected by postal questionnaire in year 2006. The
questionnaire used in was a modified version of the earlier questionnaire
(2001) with some of the original questions excluded and three new
themes added.
The questionnaire used in 2001 consisted of 71 questions or series of
questions organized under the following headings: background
information about the respondent; identity; economic information about
the firm/farm; conceptions about being an entrepreneur; principles
related to entrepreneurship and customer relations. For diversity there
were 12 additional questions related to agriculture.
Results
Self-Identification
Identity was measured by a question:
“How do you define yourself? How well do the following describe you:
I’m an Entrepreneur / Professional / Producer / Wage earner / Business manager”?
Each category was evaluated by using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1)
“not at all” to (5) “very well”.
Because the variables were skewed, they were reclassified into three classes: 1 = not
at all / somewhat / don’t know: 2 = quite well and 3 = very well.
Each identity variable was adjusted by subtracting the combined value for all identityvariables from it.
A positive value for one identity category thus reflects that this category was
evaluated as more self-descriptive when compared to other categories. And a
negative value reflects that the category was seen as less self-descriptive than the
other categories in general.
Measures for role expectations
(Scale: 1 = totally disagree – 5 = Totally agree)
-
Risk-taking:
- I am more cautious with risk-taking compared to other entrepreneurs
that I know (neg)
- I do not avoid taking risks
- I take risks only when compelled to do so (neg)
- I do not believe in success without risk-taking.
-
Growth-orientation:
- Increasing the turnover of my firm is a self-evident goal for me
- Compared to other entrepreneurs whom I know, I am more reluctant
in expanding my business (neg)
- I prefer not to hire employees in my firm (neg)
- I am trying to expand my business activities
Measures for role expectations
(Scale: 1 = totally disagree – 5 = Totally agree)
-
Risk-taking:
- I am more cautious with risk-taking compared to other entrepreneurs
that I know (neg)
- I do not avoid taking risks
- I take risks only when compelled to do so (neg)
- I do not believe in success without risk-taking.
-
Growth-orientation:
- Increasing the turnover of my firm is a self-evident goal for me
- Compared to other entrepreneurs whom I know, I am more reluctant
in expanding my business (neg)
- I prefer not to hire employees in my firm (neg)
- I am trying to expand my business activities
Innovativeness:
-
I aim for constant renewal in my business activities
I enjoy developing new products and marketing ideas
If needed, I will make major changes in my business
I prefer to keep doing things the way I am familiar with (neg)
Self-efficacy:
-
My skills are quite sufficient for working as an entrepreneur
I am more competent than an average entrepreneur
My character is not of entrepreneurial type (neg)
My personal characteristics suit well for entrepreneurship
I will succeed as an entrepreneur
Not even major setbacks can make me give up my entrepreneurship
I believe that my success in the future will outrun entrepreneurs on
average
- My success as an entrepreneur is uncertain (neg)
Personal control:
-
-
I am able to affect the success of my firm through decisions
concerning products and through production
My personal changes to influence the successfulness of my
businesses are practically rather low (neg)
I am able to affect the success of my firm through marketing and
customer connections
To a great extent I can personally control the success of my firm
Vesala, H. & Vesala K.M. (2010) Entrepreneurs and Producers: Identities of
Finnish Farmers in 2001 and 2006. Journal of Rural Studies 26 (1), 21-30. Table 1
Means of identity variables (data 2006) ***= p>.001. **=p<.01. *=p<.05
Conventional
farmers (n= 249)
Diversified
farmers (n= 381)
Non-farm
entrepreneurs (n =
125)
p<
Entrepre
neur
.34
.64
.75
***
Professional
.09
.14
.30
*
Producer
.68
.35
-.31
***
Wage-earner
-.70
-.72
-.51
***
Business
manager
-.41
-.41
-.22
**
Entrepreneur identity
F=28.3, p<.001; Pairwise comparison: Conventional farmers weaker than other
groups, no significant difference between the other two groups.
Correlations between entrepreneurial role-expectations
RiskTaking
Innovativeness
.460 ***
GrowthOrientation
.273 ***
Innovativeness
Growthorientation
Conserva
tiveness
SelfEfficacy
.425 ***
Conservativeness -.557 *** -.408 *** -.429 ***
Self-Efficacy
.326 ***
.331 ***
.388 ***
-.374 ***
Personal
Control
.139 ***
.442 ***
.276 ***
-.358 ***
*) p<.05; **) p<.01; ***) p<.001
.556 ***
Correlations between entrepreneurial identity and
role-expectations
Entrepreneurial identity
Risk-taking
.197 ***
Innovativeness
.262 ***
GrowthOrientation
Conservativeness
.260 ***
-.351 ***
Self-Efficacy
.428 ***
Personal
Control
.400 ***
*) p<.05; **) p<.01; ***) p<.001
Entrepreneurial role-expectations in three
groups on Entrepreneur Identity (EI)
Weak EI
Moderate EI
Strong EI
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
-0,8
Risk-Taking
Innovativeness
Growth-orientation Conservativeness
Self-Efficacy
Personal Control
The means and standard deviations (sd in parenthesis) of the
role-expectation variables in the main groups & analysis on
variance
Conventional
farmers
(n=233)
Diversified
farmers
(n=345)
Non-farm
entrepreneurs
(n=118)
F (p<)
Risk-Taking
-.03 (.83)
.07 (.90)
-.16 (.85)
3.4 (*)
Innovativeness
-.33 (.81)
.20 (.73)
.06 (.76)
35.1 (***)
GrowthOrientation
-.12 (.92)
.13 (.84)
-.14 (.93)
7.3 (**)
Conservativene
ss
.13 (.92)
-.11 (.82)
.07 (.81)
6.2 (**)
Self-Efficacy
-.27 (.89)
.14 (.90)
.13 (1.03)
14.8 (***)
Personal
Control
-.49 (.98)
.19 (.76)
.42 (.67)
65.1 (***)
Entrepreneurial expectations in three main groups
Conventional farmers
Diversified farmers
Non-farm entrepreneurs
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
Risk-Taking
Innovativeness
Growthorientation
Conservativeness
Self-Efficacy
Personal Control
Relations of role-expectations to background variables
Age
Risk
Inno
Groth
Conservat
SE
**
*
***
***
*
Gender
PC
**
Education
***
**
Experience
*
**
Arable land
***
Turnover
***
Man-years
***
**
*
***
***
***
***
*
***
**
***
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
Number of clients
*
End user clients
***
Processor clients
***
**
***
***
Outside workforce
***
Outside work
*
Line of production
**
**
Line of business
*
**
***
**
*
E. Entrepreneurial skills and the adoption of
entrepreneurship discourse?
Pyysiäinen, Halpin & Vesala (2010, in press):
Entrepreneurial Skills among Farmers: Approaching a Policy Issue.
• Developing the entrepreneurial skills of
farmers (ESoF-project)
• The discourse of entrepreneurial skills in the
construction of entrepreneurial self (and
agency) by farmers?
• Self-presentations regarding entrepreneurial
skills (recognising and realising business opportunities;
networking and utilising contacts; creating and evaluating
business strategy)
Figure 1 Aspects of the self (derived from Baumeister 1999)
Executive
Eskills
Presentation
of self
Reflexive
Relational
Aspects of self
The reflexive aspect deals with self-awareness: the process in which individual
views, identifies, defines, or understands herself (‘I’ looking at ‘me’: see G.H.
Mead [1934]). This is most typically done in terms of group memberships and
social roles.The relational aspect refers to self as an interpersonal being whose
existence and action are fundamentally rooted and embedded in social
relations. The third, executive aspect deals with the issue of agency. An
individual evaluates things, makes decisions, and acts in order to regulate and
develop her self as well as to control and influence her situation and events that
are of importance to her. Agency implies self-reflection (Emirbayer and Mische
1998), but it is also closely tied with the relational aspect. Exercising control in
social relations includes influencing others and the ability to utilize others as
resources or vehicles for one’s own agency.
In the case of entrepreneurship, a strong emphasis is often put on the agency
aspect of self: an entrepreneur is culturally defined as somebody who is active,
persistent, and innovative (makes things happen in economic and social
transactions). Thus, the executive aspect deserves special attention in the study
of the entrepreneurial self. Entrepreneurial skill is one of the concepts which
allow us to do this.
Case A: Entrepreneurship Inadequate: Lacking Agency
• The interviewee is a 69 -year old pig farmer, who operates the
business together with his wife. The farm has about 70 sow
pigs and 40 hectares of field. The farmer started his farming
career in 1966, and expanded production in mid-1990s.
• Skill of creating and evaluating a strategy: The farmer claims
that the skill could be useful in principle, but in his case the
operational environment and overpowering actors (vertical
production chain, financers) have frustrated the plans he has
tried to pursue. The progress of farming is presented as a
victim of unpredictable changes and uncertainties associated
especially with the dramatic decreases in producer prices
after Finnish EU membership; since then, the farmer claims,
things have not been manageable with planning or foresight.
Case A: Entrepreneurship Inadequate: Lacking Agency
• Skill of networking and utilizing contacts: The farmer starts:
“Well, it has been tried out for sure”, but goes on to explain
that things like contacting the farmers’ union will not change a
thing and that a farmer has no means to control his situation
since the big players in the market – such as central
franchising groups – are too strong. He claims that in such a
situation networking will not work nor bring any commercial
or cost benefits. He presents himself as having tried these
things but also as having recognized their uselessness.
•
Case A: Entrepreneurship Inadequate: Lacking Agency
• Skill of recognizing and realizing opportunities: The
farmer does not present a direct self-assessment
concerning how good he is in recognizing and
realizing opportunities, but assesses anyway that
their farm has recognized an opportunity in pork
production, since pigs yield much pork. However, he
is not able to tell any examples of opportunity
recognition or realization after the dramatic decrease
in pork prices. Consequently he states that it is
difficult to utilize these skills in his situation, even
though they would be useful.
Case A: Entrepreneurship Inadequate: Lacking Agency
• Summing up the case, the farmer does not present himself as
skillful in terms of any of the skills. Instead, he consistently
claims that each of the skills is useless or impossible to utilize
in his situation. The self that is presented is more a victim of
circumstances than an active agent. The self that he presents
is defined in terms of a traditional production-oriented world
and its characteristic activities; as such it remains in the
shadow of vertical chains and their “big” players. Even though
the farmer does not oppose entrepreneurship discourse, as
such, he nevertheless rejects it as inadequate to his situation.
Case B: Fluency in Entrepreneurship: Demonstrating Agency
• The interviewed couple runs a farm that
focuses on the production of strawberries,
other berries and their processing. Both wife
(age 44) and husband (age 43) are involved in
the interview. They started their farm in 1996.
They currently employ around 20 seasonal
employees for several months of the year,
mostly to assist in picking berries.
Case B: Fluency in Entrepreneurship: Demonstrating Agency
• Skill of creating and evaluating a strategy: Even though they
start by doubting if they really have strategic planning skills,
they nevertheless present themselves as thinking about and
discussing such things frequently. They present the
development of their farm business and expansion of
production as based on strategic thinking that includes
product modification and development. They present
themselves as orientated to customer needs and feedback,
which can be utilized in the development of new products and
attraction of new, or better, customers. The presentation gives
the impression that their strategy is also a successful one,
because they mention having more demand for products than
they can currently provide.
Case B: Fluency in Entrepreneurship: Demonstrating Agency
• Skill of networking and utilizing contacts: The initial direct self-assessment
of the farmers is a hesitant one. However, the indirect assessments and
accounts of their activities all point towards a self-presentation of being
pretty good in utilizing networks and contacts. They have cooperation and
joint acquisitions with other entrepreneurs and they have participated in
courses and projects where they have learned to know the local
entrepreneurs and network with them. In addition, they relay examples of
using skills in the context of sales promotion and marketing, where their
good contacts to matrons of industrial kitchens have helped them to
increase sales and broaden the variety of products. They have also utilized
local market research services to identify potential demand and markets
for their products. Even though they present themselves as entrepreneurs
who do not like to promote themselves in every social occasion and rather
focus on doing things themselves, their presentation suggests that they
utilize these skills in diverse situations and contexts.
Case B: Fluency in Entrepreneurship: Demonstrating Agency
• Skill of recognizing and realizing opportunities: The couple considers this
skill as very important for their situation, and they also claim having had
some success in recognizing and realizing opportunities that suit them.
They substantiate their claim by explaining how they recognized and found
a proper market niche for them: principally by not competing with the big
players but having a variety of own processed products besides primary
production. Another rhetorical resource in the demonstration of the skill is
their customer and product structure, both of which are open to changes
depending on the demand of the products – a feature they view as
highlighting the importance of opportunity recognition and realization
skills. They also present themselves as not being afraid of the uncertainty
related to a turbulent environment but being comfortable and even
excited about it. The farmers seem to have plenty of rhetorical resources
to give a convincing impression of mastering and utilizing these skills.
Case B: Fluency in Entrepreneurship: Demonstrating Agency
• Summing up the case, the farmers are fluent in using
entrepreneurship discourse. They construct themselves as
having the skills, as the selves are presented in terms of skill
manifestations in a diversity of contexts, such as production,
marketing and customer relationships, and utilization of
development projects and business services. The skills are
evident in enabling the farmers to renew and change the
emphasis of their farm business (e.g. products and customer
relationships) according to the demands and opportunities
encountered in the operational environment. The strategy
selected is thus presented as an effective means to deal with,
and control the business in, a dynamic environment.
Case C: Negotiating Entrepreneurship: Relating to Farming
Community
• The interviewed farmers are cousins, both
male, aged 30 and 40, who own a farm
consortium, which produces crops (c. 180 ha).
The older farmer started the farming in 1992
and younger one joined in 2005.
Case C: Negotiating Entrepreneurship: Relating to Farming Community
• Skill of creating and evaluating a strategy: The farmers do not
directly comment on whether they have a business strategy, but
their subsequent descriptions function to present their actions as
based on strategic planning. For instance, they aim to maintain
their income level by taking pre-emptive actions to reduce costs.
They demonstrate this principle by explaining how they have
calculated the most profitable options in their machine
investments, and on the basis of the calculations ended up buying
a joint harvester-thresher together with a farmer from the
neighborhood. They also mention having committed themselves
to the cooperation with the neighbor. As an additional rhetorical
resource, they give an account of the principle of strategic
planning in their situation: one should be committed to the
selected strategy on a longer range and also evaluate its pros and
cons in the longer run.
Case C: Negotiating Entrepreneurship: Relating to Farming Community
• Skill of networking and utilizing contacts: The farmers do not
clearly present themselves as either having or lacking the
skills. However, they give indirect accounts of themselves as
having the skills, when they again describe their close
production cooperation with the neighbor farm. They explain
that the cooperative relationships – both within the
consortium and with the neighbor – function as a kind of
insurance for them; now that there are three farmers capable
of taking care of the most important tasks, all three are better
off in case of unexpected events and accidents. Furthermore,
they explain that their networking skills are used to pursue
clearly articulated financial purposes: they aim at cutting
down production costs.
Case C: Negotiating Entrepreneurship: Relating to Farming Community
• Skill of recognizing and realizing opportunities: The farmers do not explicitly
present themselves as either having or lacking the skills, but they tell that the
current mode of farming is the result of careful thinking and joint discussions,
where they have reflected on the possible directions of their farm business.
For instance, before making the decision about the joint machine investment
they analyzed the situations of other farms in the region and the future
availability of farmland; since possibilities to purchase extra farmland did not
seem likely, they opted to intensify their cooperation with the neighbor farm
as a means to secure effectiveness. In their explanation they state that they
analyze what the realization of other business opportunities would require,
but they view the opportunities from the perspectives of the farming
community and safety. Above all, they do not want to “step on the toes” of
other farmers and their businesses but want to maintain good relationships
within the community where they have lived their whole lives. They claim
that their primary production and forestry activities still provide them
sufficient standard of livelihood and that’s why they do not view it necessary
to try out any riskier options.
Case C: Negotiating Entrepreneurship: Relating to Farming Community
• Summing up the case, the farmers do use the
entrepreneurship discourse, but its usage is characterized by
efforts to reconcile it together with relational preconditions of
the farming community. The self that is presented becomes
defined in terms of activities and relationships related to
primary production; on the one hand, the social relations are
presented as enabling the management of the selected
course, but on the other hand they are presented as
restricting the range of trajectories that they consider
desirable, such as willingness to engage in non-farm business
activities. Nevertheless, the chosen orientation, which
combines cost-reduction and anticipative action orientations,
is presented as providing them their means of business
control vis-á-vis the operation environment.
Concluding Esof
• cases B and C accepted the entrepreneurial skill discourse as relevant to
themselves, even though they both reconciled it to their distinctive action
situations in different ways. Case A, in turn, found the entrepreneurial
skills to be inappropriate to presenting his situation: but even he did not
reject the discourse as such, only its applicability for him. Indeed, the
analysis revealed that in their self-assessments the farmers did not just
passively accept or ingest the entrepreneurship discourse, but they
actively used and reconciled it in the construction of their selfpresentations. None of them simply rejected the entrepreneurship
discourse nor claimed outright to be especially skilful; instead, they were
active and creative in connecting the discourse to their own life-worlds
and particular everyday experiences, which, as rhetorical resources,
provided them different alternatives to substantiate the discourse.
Concluding Esof
• most of the farmers who were interviewed in the Esof project were
favorable towards using the discourse of entrepreneurial skills. One might
wonder whether this outcome had something to do with the procedure of
selecting the interviewees, in which the potential interviewees were
approached through middle men who knew that the study focused on
entrepreneurship. A more reliable source upon which to base
generalizations is provided by Vesala (2008), who reports results from a
nationwide postal survey among farmers (n = 625) and non-farm rural
small business owners (n = 126) in Finland. These results suggest that over
two-thirds of farmers consider entrepreneurial skills as fairly or very
important for themselves, whereas one in ten views these skills only
somewhat or not at all important.
Concluding Esof
• It is apparent from our interview material that production related
rhetorical resources did not enable the interviewees to make very rich and
convincing presentations of their skills; instead, when convincing
presentations of entrepreneurial skills were made, they were typically
constructed with rhetorical resources associated with product
development and differentiation, marketing and sales arena and customer
and cooperation relationships. Comparing our three cases along such a
dimension, we notice that cases A and B resemble almost polar opposites
in this respect. It thus seems that how the skills can be digested and
presented is at least to some extent determined by the immediate
situation and characteristics of the action context, notably the nature of
the business and business networks.
Concluding Esof
• As indicated in the case descriptions, a key difference in the selfconstructions between these cases concerns the nature of agency. In the
self-presentation of case B the entrepreneurial skills were connected to
activities and instances that enabled the self to deal with, and control the
business in spite of, uncertainties and changes in a dynamic environment.
The self was constructed as an active agent, which, by means of the
entrepreneurial skills, is able to effect change and exert control in the
business environment. In case A, a contrary picture was painted as
entrepreneurial skills were presented as inadequate: the uncertainties and
changes of an overpowering business environment were presented as
dispossessing the self of its agentic aspects. The entrepreneurial skill
discourse did not provide the farmer any viable resources to demonstrate
his agency.